ORDER : The convicted accused is the revision petitioner herein. He has filed this Criminal Revision Case to set aside the judgment dated 07.07.2009 passed in C.A.No.50 of 2006, on the file of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.I, Tuticorin confirming the judgment dated 31.03.2006 passed in C.C.No.47 of 2005 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Tirunelveli. 2. The case of the prosecution is that the first accused was the then Secretary for the period of 1998 to 2002 and when P.W.1 Deputy Registrar, has made a surprise inspection, he found that while handing over the responsibilities to P.W.3 new Secretary, the accused has forged certain documents and also made false entry and thereby has misappropriated a sum of Rs.1,35,496.15/-. Therefore, he committed for the offence under Sections 408 and 477(A) IPC. 3. In order to prove the charges, the prosecution has examined P.W.1 to P.W.6 and marked Exs.P.1 to P.22. 4. On consideration of both oral and documentary evidence, the trial Court has found the accused guilty and has convicted the accused to undergo twelve months simple imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- in default to undergo three months simple imprisonment for the offences under Sections 408 and 477(A) IPC each and the above said sentences shall run concurrently. 5. On appeal in C.A.No.50 of 2006, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.I, Tuticorin has dismissed the same confirming the conviction and sentence of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Tirunelveli. Aggrieved against the same, the revision petitioner has filed this revision. 6. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner contended that the prosecution has failed to establish the necessary ingredients to constitute the offences under Sections 408 and 477(A) IPC and the Courts below ought not to have convicted on the basis of Ex.Ps.14 and P.17 and the prosecution has not given any explanation for the delay in lodging the complaint for the alleged misdeeds committed in the year 1998-1999. 7. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent would submit that after the receipt of the report under Section 80(2) of the Co-operative Societies Act, action has been taken. Therefore, there is no delay in filing the First Information Report. 7. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent would submit that after the receipt of the report under Section 80(2) of the Co-operative Societies Act, action has been taken. Therefore, there is no delay in filing the First Information Report. Admittedly, as per Ex.P.17, the accused has accepted his guilt and sought three days time to deposit the amount and therefore, prays for dismissal of the revision petition. 8. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner, the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent and perused the materials available on record carefully. 9. Points for determination are whether the conviction passed by the Courts below is sustainable in law and whether the sentence awarded by the Courts below is excessive. 10. It is seen from the evidence of the prosecution that the Deputy Registrar is examined as P.W.1, while the Sub-Registrar is examined as P.W.2. P.W.3 is the Secretary, who has assumed the post of Secretary of the said society, after the accused herein. P.W.4 is Field Manager, who has found the shortage of money to the tune of Rs.1,35,496.15/- and the accused has not handed over the said amount to the society. P.W.5 is the Sub-Registrar of the Co-operative Society, who gave a report that inspite of the admission of guilt by the accused under Ex.P.17, he has not remitted the amount as undertaken and hence, requested P.W.6 Inspector of Police to register the case. 11. After going through the evidence of Ex.P.1, Special Report submitted by P.W.1 and also taking note of the report filed under Section 81 of the Co-operative Societies Act with regard to the alleged misappropriation of fund, it is seen that the accused has misappropriated the fund from the Co-operative Society. Ex.P.15 is the items that have been handed over at the time of the assumption of the office by P.W.3 and as per Ex.P.16, P.W.3 has given statement before the Enquiry Officer regarding the shortage of the amount of Rs.1,35,496.15, which was not deposited by the accused to the Co-operative Bank as per the directions given by P.W.1 and Ex.P.19 is the by-laws governing rules, wherein the liability and responsibility has been fixed upon the Secretary, namely the accused herein. 12. 12. The case of the prosecution in brief is that when P.W.1 has made a surprise inspection, it comes to light that the first accused was the then Secretary for the period of 1998 to 2002 and at the time of conducting surprise inspection by P.W.1 Deputy Registrar, he found that while handing over the responsibilities to P.W.3 new Secretary, the accused has forged certain documents and also made false entry and thereby has misappropriated a sum of Rs.1,35,496.15/-. On enquiry by P.W.4 Field Officer, it is projected that he has admitted guilty under Ex.P.17 and undertaken to pay the said amount remitted in the Central Co-operative Society, within three days and according to Ex.P.17, he has used the said amount for personal utilisation and thereafter when the enquiry was conducted under Section 81 of the Co-operative Societies Act, by P.W.5, enquiry officer, the accused has not attended the enquiry. 13. Based upon the documents produced before the trial Court, the trial Court has held that under Ex.P.14 deposit note, misappropriation of the aforesaid amount by making false entry is come to light, hence, laid conviction and sentence as stated supra. 14. Since the accused was the Secretary in the year 1998-2002 and thereafter, P.W.3 present Secretary came to be appointed and assumed charge and the accused has not handed over the aforesaid amount, the question of limitation as raised by the revision petitioner does not stand for reasoning. Accordingly, the said contention is negatived. 15. After going through the documentary evidence of Ex.P.14, deposition note and also Ex.P.17, guilty memo, the said contention cannot be accepted. Both the Courts below have concurrently held that the accused has failed to deposit the aforesaid amount as admitted by him under Ex.P.17. 16. I have given my anxious consideration for the said plea. Admittedly, as per Ex.P.14, deposition note, it is found that the accused has utilized the aforesaid amount for personal utilisation, after making false entry. 17. Both the Courts below have concurrently held that the accused has failed to deposit the aforesaid amount as admitted by him under Ex.P.17. 16. I have given my anxious consideration for the said plea. Admittedly, as per Ex.P.14, deposition note, it is found that the accused has utilized the aforesaid amount for personal utilisation, after making false entry. 17. From the above discussion, it appears that though there is a specific rule under by-law, the Secretary shall not keep the amount more than a sum of Rs.10,000/- in hand and in the event of the amount more than Rs.10,000/-, the same has to be deposited in the Co-operative Bank and since the accused being the Secretary was keeping huge amount as a cash in hand, as per the by law he has been removed and P.W.3 has been assumed the office on that day and the list of articles and the accounts that has been handed over, has been listed out under Ex.P.15. Since a sum of Rs.1,35,496/- was found to be shortage, the accused has produced Ex.P.14 as if he has deposited the amount on his account and he is ready to pay the amount within three days as per Ex.P.17. These statements have been recorded during the departmental enquiry. As he failed to pay the amount, the complaint has been lodged, investigation appears to have been conducted. 18. In view of the clear and cogent evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 and also taking note of the evidence of subsequent Secretary P.W.3 and non-payment of the amount by the accused, both the Courts below have categorically held that Ex.P.14 is forged document and the accused has misappropriated the aforesaid amount for his personal use and advantage by creating Ex.P.14 forged document and accordingly, laid conviction and sentence under Sections 408 and 477(A) IPC and the conviction and sentence is based upon the material evidence available during the departmental enquiry under Section 81 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Society Act and those facts are not seriously disputed by the defence during the cross examination of the prosecution witnesses and both the Courts below have given valid reasons in negativing the plea of delay in filing the First Information Report and also negativing the plea of admissibility of Ex.P.17 and the said finding by the Courts below does not call for any interference at this revisional stage. 19. 19. In this view of the matter, this Criminal Revision Case is partly allowed. However, Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the sentence awarded by both the Courts below is reduced from twelve months simple imprisonment for the offences under Sections 408 and 477(A) IPC each to six months simple imprisonment for the aforesaid Sections each. However, the fine amount of Rs.1000/- each for the aforesaid Sections and default clause ordered by both the Courts below are ordered to be kept intake. The period already undergone by the revision petitioner / accused is ordered to be given set off.